Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1401

control, N = 711

treatment, N = 691

p-value2

age

138

50.91 ± 12.56 (25 - 74)

51.44 ± 12.37 (25 - 74)

50.37 ± 12.82 (28 - 73)

0.620

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

140

0.916

f

107 (76%)

54 (76%)

53 (77%)

m

33 (24%)

17 (24%)

16 (23%)

occupation

140

0.641

day_training

2 (1.4%)

2 (2.8%)

0 (0%)

full_time

17 (12%)

8 (11%)

9 (13%)

homemaker

12 (8.6%)

5 (7.0%)

7 (10%)

other

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.9%)

part_time

25 (18%)

12 (17%)

13 (19%)

retired

38 (27%)

19 (27%)

19 (28%)

self_employ

7 (5.0%)

4 (5.6%)

3 (4.3%)

student

2 (1.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.9%)

t_and_e

2 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

1 (1.4%)

unemploy

33 (24%)

20 (28%)

13 (19%)

marital

140

0.817

cohabitation

1 (0.7%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.4%)

divore

15 (11%)

10 (14%)

5 (7.2%)

in_relationship

4 (2.9%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.9%)

married

39 (28%)

20 (28%)

19 (28%)

none

70 (50%)

33 (46%)

37 (54%)

seperation

3 (2.1%)

2 (2.8%)

1 (1.4%)

widow

8 (5.7%)

4 (5.6%)

4 (5.8%)

edu

140

0.249

bachelor

35 (25%)

13 (18%)

22 (32%)

diploma

26 (19%)

17 (24%)

9 (13%)

hd_ad

4 (2.9%)

3 (4.2%)

1 (1.4%)

postgraduate

12 (8.6%)

5 (7.0%)

7 (10%)

primary

9 (6.4%)

3 (4.2%)

6 (8.7%)

secondary_1_3

16 (11%)

9 (13%)

7 (10%)

secondary_4_5

32 (23%)

19 (27%)

13 (19%)

secondary_6_7

6 (4.3%)

2 (2.8%)

4 (5.8%)

fam_income

140

0.981

10001_12000

6 (4.3%)

2 (2.8%)

4 (5.8%)

12001_14000

7 (5.0%)

3 (4.2%)

4 (5.8%)

14001_16000

7 (5.0%)

3 (4.2%)

4 (5.8%)

16001_18000

4 (2.9%)

2 (2.8%)

2 (2.9%)

18001_20000

6 (4.3%)

4 (5.6%)

2 (2.9%)

20001_above

27 (19%)

15 (21%)

12 (17%)

2001_4000

20 (14%)

11 (15%)

9 (13%)

4001_6000

14 (10%)

6 (8.5%)

8 (12%)

6001_8000

12 (8.6%)

7 (9.9%)

5 (7.2%)

8001_10000

10 (7.1%)

4 (5.6%)

6 (8.7%)

below_2000

27 (19%)

14 (20%)

13 (19%)

medication

140

123 (88%)

62 (87%)

61 (88%)

0.845

onset_duration

137

15.23 ± 10.25 (0 - 56)

15.87 ± 10.92 (0 - 56)

14.55 ± 9.51 (0 - 35)

0.452

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

135

35.90 ± 13.95 (10 - 65)

35.40 ± 12.70 (10 - 61)

36.42 ± 15.23 (14 - 65)

0.673

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1401

control, N = 711

treatment, N = 691

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

140

3.20 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

3.27 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.13 ± 1.12 (1 - 5)

0.492

recovery_stage_b

140

17.97 ± 2.78 (8 - 24)

17.90 ± 2.93 (8 - 24)

18.04 ± 2.64 (13 - 24)

0.764

ras_confidence

140

30.03 ± 5.14 (15 - 45)

29.83 ± 4.88 (15 - 40)

30.23 ± 5.42 (18 - 45)

0.646

ras_willingness

140

11.79 ± 2.09 (5 - 15)

11.66 ± 2.07 (5 - 15)

11.93 ± 2.12 (7 - 15)

0.455

ras_goal

140

17.39 ± 3.09 (11 - 25)

17.14 ± 2.89 (11 - 24)

17.64 ± 3.28 (11 - 25)

0.343

ras_reliance

140

13.20 ± 2.95 (5 - 20)

12.99 ± 2.81 (5 - 18)

13.42 ± 3.08 (7 - 20)

0.385

ras_domination

140

9.92 ± 2.42 (3 - 15)

10.17 ± 2.32 (3 - 15)

9.67 ± 2.51 (3 - 15)

0.221

symptom

139

29.94 ± 9.39 (14 - 56)

29.93 ± 9.61 (14 - 55)

29.94 ± 9.23 (15 - 56)

0.994

Unknown

1

0

1

slof_work

140

22.51 ± 4.78 (10 - 30)

22.85 ± 4.38 (13 - 30)

22.17 ± 5.16 (10 - 30)

0.408

slof_relationship

140

25.20 ± 6.03 (9 - 35)

24.90 ± 6.05 (9 - 35)

25.51 ± 6.05 (11 - 35)

0.555

satisfaction

140

20.58 ± 7.23 (5 - 35)

19.99 ± 6.80 (5 - 33)

21.19 ± 7.65 (5 - 35)

0.327

mhc_emotional

140

10.94 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

10.69 ± 3.69 (3 - 17)

11.20 ± 3.95 (3 - 18)

0.428

mhc_social

140

15.08 ± 5.61 (5 - 30)

14.75 ± 5.59 (5 - 30)

15.42 ± 5.66 (5 - 29)

0.480

mhc_psychological

140

21.94 ± 6.48 (6 - 36)

21.80 ± 6.11 (7 - 36)

22.09 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)

0.796

resilisnce

140

16.69 ± 4.72 (6 - 30)

16.25 ± 4.20 (6 - 24)

17.13 ± 5.20 (6 - 30)

0.274

social_provision

140

13.56 ± 2.89 (5 - 20)

13.11 ± 2.65 (5 - 20)

14.03 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

0.060

els_value_living

140

16.96 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.59 ± 2.94 (6 - 22)

17.35 ± 3.37 (5 - 25)

0.159

els_life_fulfill

140

12.75 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)

12.37 ± 3.28 (5 - 19)

13.14 ± 3.59 (4 - 20)

0.182

els

140

29.71 ± 6.01 (9 - 45)

28.96 ± 5.53 (11 - 38)

30.49 ± 6.42 (9 - 45)

0.131

social_connect

140

26.46 ± 9.51 (8 - 48)

26.73 ± 9.24 (8 - 48)

26.19 ± 9.84 (8 - 48)

0.736

shs_agency

140

14.36 ± 5.17 (3 - 24)

13.97 ± 4.77 (3 - 21)

14.77 ± 5.57 (3 - 24)

0.365

shs_pathway

140

16.06 ± 4.06 (4 - 24)

15.75 ± 3.87 (5 - 24)

16.39 ± 4.25 (4 - 24)

0.349

shs

140

30.43 ± 8.84 (7 - 48)

29.72 ± 8.27 (8 - 45)

31.16 ± 9.40 (7 - 48)

0.337

esteem

140

12.61 ± 1.65 (9 - 20)

12.65 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.58 ± 1.68 (10 - 20)

0.808

mlq_search

140

14.84 ± 3.52 (3 - 21)

14.70 ± 3.32 (6 - 21)

14.97 ± 3.74 (3 - 21)

0.656

mlq_presence

140

13.51 ± 4.21 (3 - 21)

13.38 ± 3.80 (4 - 21)

13.65 ± 4.63 (3 - 21)

0.704

mlq

140

28.35 ± 6.94 (6 - 42)

28.08 ± 6.26 (10 - 40)

28.62 ± 7.61 (6 - 42)

0.648

empower

140

19.29 ± 4.28 (6 - 30)

18.97 ± 4.17 (11 - 30)

19.61 ± 4.40 (6 - 30)

0.380

ismi_resistance

140

14.55 ± 2.53 (5 - 20)

14.48 ± 2.21 (10 - 20)

14.62 ± 2.84 (5 - 20)

0.737

ismi_discrimation

140

11.59 ± 3.15 (5 - 20)

11.96 ± 3.02 (5 - 20)

11.22 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

0.165

sss_affective

140

9.92 ± 3.55 (3 - 18)

10.03 ± 3.51 (3 - 18)

9.81 ± 3.60 (3 - 18)

0.719

sss_behavior

140

9.66 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

9.89 ± 3.85 (3 - 18)

9.43 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)

0.480

sss_cognitive

140

8.19 ± 3.74 (3 - 18)

8.24 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

8.14 ± 3.73 (3 - 18)

0.882

sss

140

27.78 ± 10.21 (9 - 54)

28.15 ± 10.26 (9 - 54)

27.39 ± 10.22 (9 - 54)

0.660

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.27

0.137

3.00, 3.54

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.137

0.195

-0.519, 0.245

0.483

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.058

0.234

-0.402, 0.517

0.806

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.437

0.334

-0.218, 1.09

0.194

Pseudo R square

0.018

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.340

17.2, 18.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.142

0.484

-0.807, 1.09

0.770

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.306

0.541

-1.37, 0.755

0.574

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.728

0.773

-0.787, 2.24

0.349

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.8

0.619

28.6, 31.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.401

0.881

-1.33, 2.13

0.650

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.766

0.754

-0.712, 2.24

0.314

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.05

1.077

-1.06, 3.16

0.333

Pseudo R square

0.018

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.249

11.2, 12.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.266

0.354

-0.428, 0.959

0.454

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.581

0.300

-1.17, 0.006

0.057

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.789

0.428

-0.049, 1.63

0.070

Pseudo R square

0.022

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.1

0.375

16.4, 17.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.497

0.535

-0.551, 1.54

0.354

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.363

0.495

-1.33, 0.607

0.466

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.47

0.707

0.085, 2.86

0.041

Pseudo R square

0.033

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.348

12.3, 13.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.434

0.495

-0.536, 1.40

0.382

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.395

0.406

-0.400, 1.19

0.334

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.984

0.579

-0.151, 2.12

0.094

Pseudo R square

0.037

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.2

0.281

9.62, 10.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.502

0.400

-1.29, 0.282

0.211

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.242

0.427

-1.08, 0.596

0.574

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.35

0.610

0.152, 2.54

0.031

Pseudo R square

0.023

symptom

(Intercept)

29.9

1.117

27.7, 32.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.012

1.597

-3.12, 3.14

0.994

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.121

1.087

-2.25, 2.01

0.912

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.43

1.552

-4.47, 1.61

0.360

Pseudo R square

0.003

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.8

0.565

21.7, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.671

0.805

-2.25, 0.906

0.405

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.309

0.654

-1.59, 0.972

0.638

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.425

0.933

-1.40, 2.25

0.650

Pseudo R square

0.004

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.9

0.712

23.5, 26.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.606

1.015

-1.38, 2.59

0.551

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.15

0.774

-2.67, 0.368

0.143

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.94

1.106

-0.231, 4.10

0.085

Pseudo R square

0.014

satisfaction

(Intercept)

20.0

0.863

18.3, 21.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.20

1.229

-1.21, 3.61

0.329

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.601

1.073

-1.50, 2.70

0.577

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.534

1.532

-2.47, 3.54

0.729

Pseudo R square

0.012

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.449

9.81, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.513

0.640

-0.741, 1.77

0.424

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.386

0.503

-0.599, 1.37

0.445

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.204

0.718

-1.61, 1.20

0.777

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.7

0.682

13.4, 16.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.674

0.971

-1.23, 2.58

0.489

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.731

0.872

-0.979, 2.44

0.405

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.502

1.245

-2.94, 1.94

0.688

Pseudo R square

0.004

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.8

0.791

20.3, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.284

1.127

-1.93, 2.49

0.801

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.697

0.985

-1.23, 2.63

0.482

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.017

1.406

-2.74, 2.77

0.990

Pseudo R square

0.003

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.550

15.2, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.877

0.783

-0.657, 2.41

0.264

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.136

0.713

-1.26, 1.53

0.850

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.46

1.018

-0.539, 3.45

0.158

Pseudo R square

0.030

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.344

12.4, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.916

0.490

-0.043, 1.88

0.063

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.519

0.468

-1.44, 0.398

0.271

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.692

0.667

-0.616, 2.00

0.303

Pseudo R square

0.039

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.379

15.8, 17.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.756

0.540

-0.302, 1.81

0.163

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.263

0.484

-0.685, 1.21

0.589

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.265

0.690

-1.09, 1.62

0.702

Pseudo R square

0.020

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.4

0.402

11.6, 13.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.779

0.573

-0.344, 1.90

0.176

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.544

0.410

-0.260, 1.35

0.190

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.195

0.586

-1.34, 0.953

0.740

Pseudo R square

0.015

els

(Intercept)

29.0

0.713

27.6, 30.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.54

1.016

-0.456, 3.53

0.133

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.774

0.749

-0.694, 2.24

0.306

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.089

1.069

-2.01, 2.18

0.934

Pseudo R square

0.020

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.7

1.141

24.5, 29.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.544

1.626

-3.73, 2.64

0.738

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.32

1.218

-1.07, 3.70

0.284

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.84

1.739

-7.25, -0.431

0.031

Pseudo R square

0.015

shs_agency

(Intercept)

14.0

0.612

12.8, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.796

0.872

-0.913, 2.51

0.363

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.080

0.682

-1.26, 1.42

0.907

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.796

0.973

-1.11, 2.70

0.416

Pseudo R square

0.012

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.7

0.477

14.8, 16.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.645

0.680

-0.688, 1.98

0.344

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.194

0.527

-0.840, 1.23

0.715

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.030

0.753

-1.51, 1.44

0.968

Pseudo R square

0.007

shs

(Intercept)

29.7

1.041

27.7, 31.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.44

1.483

-1.47, 4.35

0.333

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.273

1.107

-1.90, 2.44

0.806

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.747

1.580

-2.35, 3.84

0.638

Pseudo R square

0.010

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.184

12.3, 13.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.068

0.262

-0.583, 0.446

0.795

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.049

0.305

-0.548, 0.647

0.872

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.118

0.435

-0.735, 0.971

0.788

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.7

0.413

13.9, 15.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.267

0.589

-0.887, 1.42

0.651

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.162

0.595

-1.00, 1.33

0.786

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.207

0.850

-1.87, 1.46

0.808

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.4

0.497

12.4, 14.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.272

0.708

-1.12, 1.66

0.702

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.249

0.632

-0.990, 1.49

0.695

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.041

0.903

-1.73, 1.81

0.964

Pseudo R square

0.002

mlq

(Intercept)

28.1

0.824

26.5, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.539

1.174

-1.76, 2.84

0.647

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.418

1.089

-1.72, 2.55

0.703

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.152

1.555

-3.20, 2.90

0.922

Pseudo R square

0.002

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.509

18.0, 20.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.637

0.725

-0.783, 2.06

0.381

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.178

0.548

-0.897, 1.25

0.747

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.446

0.783

-1.98, 1.09

0.571

Pseudo R square

0.004

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.5

0.296

13.9, 15.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.144

0.422

-0.683, 0.972

0.733

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.015

0.448

-0.894, 0.863

0.973

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.494

0.640

-0.760, 1.75

0.442

Pseudo R square

0.007

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.0

0.375

11.2, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.740

0.534

-1.79, 0.307

0.168

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.352

0.459

-1.25, 0.547

0.446

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.272

0.655

-1.01, 1.55

0.680

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.0

0.416

9.21, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.217

0.592

-1.38, 0.944

0.715

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.161

0.496

-0.811, 1.13

0.746

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.21

0.708

-2.60, 0.173

0.091

Pseudo R square

0.015

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.89

0.442

9.02, 10.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.453

0.629

-1.69, 0.780

0.473

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.012

0.537

-1.06, 1.04

0.982

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.730

0.766

-2.23, 0.771

0.344

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.24

0.441

7.38, 9.10

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.095

0.627

-1.32, 1.14

0.880

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.705

0.523

-0.320, 1.73

0.182

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.40

0.747

-2.86, 0.064

0.065

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss

(Intercept)

28.2

1.204

25.8, 30.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.764

1.715

-4.12, 2.60

0.657

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.793

1.322

-1.80, 3.38

0.551

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.18

1.887

-6.88, 0.523

0.097

Pseudo R square

0.012

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.27 (95% CI [3.00, 3.54], t(187) = 23.86, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.25], t(187) = -0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.52], t(187) = 0.25, p = 0.806; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.45])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-0.22, 1.09], t(187) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.94])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.90 (95% CI [17.24, 18.57], t(187) = 52.66, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.09], t(187) = 0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.76], t(187) = -0.56, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.27])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.24], t(187) = 0.94, p = 0.346; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.79])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.83 (95% CI [28.62, 31.04], t(187) = 48.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-1.33, 2.13], t(187) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.71, 2.24], t(187) = 1.02, p = 0.310; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.16], t(187) = 0.98, p = 0.329; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.61])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.66 (95% CI [11.17, 12.15], t(187) = 46.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.96], t(187) = 0.75, p = 0.453; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.17, 6.06e-03], t(187) = -1.94, p = 0.052; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.56, 2.91e-03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.63], t(187) = 1.84, p = 0.065; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.78])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.14 (95% CI [16.41, 17.88], t(187) = 45.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.54], t(187) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-1.33, 0.61], t(187) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [0.08, 2.86], t(187) = 2.08, p = 0.038; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [0.03, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.99 (95% CI [12.30, 13.67], t(187) = 37.36, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.40], t(187) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.19], t(187) = 0.97, p = 0.330; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.15, 2.12], t(187) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.17 (95% CI [9.62, 10.72], t(187) = 36.19, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.29, 0.28], t(187) = -1.26, p = 0.209; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.12])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.60], t(187) = -0.57, p = 0.572; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.35, 95% CI [0.15, 2.54], t(187) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.57, 95% CI [0.06, 1.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.93 (95% CI [27.74, 32.12], t(186) = 26.79, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-3.12, 3.14], t(186) = 7.26e-03, p = 0.994; Std. beta = 1.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-2.25, 2.01], t(186) = -0.11, p = 0.911; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.43, 95% CI [-4.47, 1.61], t(186) = -0.92, p = 0.356; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.17])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.88e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.85 (95% CI [21.74, 23.95], t(187) = 40.45, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.67, 95% CI [-2.25, 0.91], t(187) = -0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-1.59, 0.97], t(187) = -0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.40, 2.25], t(187) = 0.46, p = 0.649; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.48])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.90 (95% CI [23.51, 26.30], t(187) = 34.96, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.38, 2.59], t(187) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.15, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.37], t(187) = -1.48, p = 0.138; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.06])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.94, 95% CI [-0.23, 4.10], t(187) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.69])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.99 (95% CI [18.29, 21.68], t(187) = 23.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.21, 3.61], t(187) = 0.98, p = 0.328; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-1.50, 2.70], t(187) = 0.56, p = 0.575; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-2.47, 3.54], t(187) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.92e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.69 (95% CI [9.81, 11.57], t(187) = 23.81, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.74, 1.77], t(187) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.37], t(187) = 0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.61, 1.20], t(187) = -0.28, p = 0.776; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.75 (95% CI [13.41, 16.08], t(187) = 21.62, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.58], t(187) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.98, 2.44], t(187) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-2.94, 1.94], t(187) = -0.40, p = 0.687; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.70e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.80 (95% CI [20.25, 23.35], t(187) = 27.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.93, 2.49], t(187) = 0.25, p = 0.801; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-1.23, 2.63], t(187) = 0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-2.74, 2.77], t(187) = 0.01, p = 0.990; Std. beta = 2.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.25 (95% CI [15.18, 17.33], t(187) = 29.58, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.41], t(187) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.53], t(187) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.46, 95% CI [-0.54, 3.45], t(187) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.75])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.44, 13.79], t(187) = 38.16, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.88], t(187) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-1.44, 0.40], t(187) = -1.11, p = 0.267; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.62, 2.00], t(187) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.68])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.59 (95% CI [15.85, 17.33], t(187) = 43.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.30, 1.81], t(187) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.21], t(187) = 0.54, p = 0.587; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.62], t(187) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.51])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.37 (95% CI [11.58, 13.15], t(187) = 30.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.90], t(187) = 1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.35], t(187) = 1.33, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.95], t(187) = -0.33, p = 0.739; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.96 (95% CI [27.56, 30.36], t(187) = 40.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.54, 95% CI [-0.46, 3.53], t(187) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.24], t(187) = 1.03, p = 0.301; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-2.01, 2.18], t(187) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.73 (95% CI [24.50, 28.97], t(187) = 23.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-3.73, 2.64], t(187) = -0.33, p = 0.738; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.27])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-1.07, 3.70], t(187) = 1.08, p = 0.280; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -3.84, 95% CI [-7.25, -0.43], t(187) = -2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [12.77, 15.17], t(187) = 22.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.91, 2.51], t(187) = 0.91, p = 0.361; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-1.26, 1.42], t(187) = 0.12, p = 0.907; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.70], t(187) = 0.82, p = 0.413; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.53])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.64e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.75 (95% CI [14.81, 16.68], t(187) = 32.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.98], t(187) = 0.95, p = 0.343; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.23], t(187) = 0.37, p = 0.714; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.44], t(187) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -7.67e-03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.36])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.72 (95% CI [27.68, 31.76], t(187) = 28.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.44, 95% CI [-1.47, 4.35], t(187) = 0.97, p = 0.331; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.50])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.90, 2.44], t(187) = 0.25, p = 0.805; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-2.35, 3.84], t(187) = 0.47, p = 0.636; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.37e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.65 (95% CI [12.29, 13.01], t(187) = 68.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.45], t(187) = -0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.29])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.65], t(187) = 0.16, p = 0.872; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.97], t(187) = 0.27, p = 0.787; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.70 (95% CI [13.89, 15.51], t(187) = 35.57, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.89, 1.42], t(187) = 0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(187) = 0.27, p = 0.786; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.87, 1.46], t(187) = -0.24, p = 0.808; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.41, 14.35], t(187) = 26.91, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.12, 1.66], t(187) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.99, 1.49], t(187) = 0.39, p = 0.694; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.73, 1.81], t(187) = 0.05, p = 0.964; Std. beta = 9.87e-03, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.44])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.79e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.08 (95% CI [26.47, 29.70], t(187) = 34.06, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-1.76, 2.84], t(187) = 0.46, p = 0.646; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.41])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-1.72, 2.55], t(187) = 0.38, p = 0.701; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.37])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-3.20, 2.90], t(187) = -0.10, p = 0.922; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.16e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.97 (95% CI [17.97, 19.97], t(187) = 37.29, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.64, 95% CI [-0.78, 2.06], t(187) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.90, 1.25], t(187) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.98, 1.09], t(187) = -0.57, p = 0.569; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.72e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.90, 15.06], t(187) = 48.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.97], t(187) = 0.34, p = 0.733; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.89, 0.86], t(187) = -0.03, p = 0.973; Std. beta = -6.07e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.76, 1.75], t(187) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.70])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.96 (95% CI [11.22, 12.69], t(187) = 31.87, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.74, 95% CI [-1.79, 0.31], t(187) = -1.39, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-1.25, 0.55], t(187) = -0.77, p = 0.443; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-1.01, 1.55], t(187) = 0.41, p = 0.678; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.03 (95% CI [9.21, 10.84], t(187) = 24.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-1.38, 0.94], t(187) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.81, 1.13], t(187) = 0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.21, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.17], t(187) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.89 (95% CI [9.02, 10.75], t(187) = 22.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.69, 0.78], t(187) = -0.72, p = 0.472; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.04], t(187) = -0.02, p = 0.982; Std. beta = -3.23e-03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.73, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.77], t(187) = -0.95, p = 0.340; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.24 (95% CI [7.38, 9.10], t(187) = 18.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-1.32, 1.14], t(187) = -0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.73], t(187) = 1.35, p = 0.178; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.40, 95% CI [-2.86, 0.06], t(187) = -1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.15 (95% CI [25.80, 30.51], t(187) = 23.39, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.76, 95% CI [-4.12, 2.60], t(187) = -0.45, p = 0.656; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.25])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.38], t(187) = 0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.18, 95% CI [-6.88, 0.52], t(187) = -1.68, p = 0.092; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.05])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

604.837

614.625

-299.418

598.837

recovery_stage_a

random

6

606.408

625.984

-297.204

594.408

4.429

3

0.219

recovery_stage_b

null

3

947.518

957.306

-470.759

941.518

recovery_stage_b

random

6

952.112

971.688

-470.056

940.112

1.406

3

0.704

ras_confidence

null

3

1,160.167

1,169.956

-577.084

1,154.167

ras_confidence

random

6

1,159.090

1,178.666

-573.545

1,147.090

7.077

3

0.069

ras_willingness

null

3

805.735

815.523

-399.867

799.735

ras_willingness

random

6

806.003

825.579

-397.002

794.003

5.732

3

0.125

ras_goal

null

3

975.499

985.287

-484.750

969.499

ras_goal

random

6

973.767

993.343

-480.884

961.767

7.732

3

0.052

ras_reliance

null

3

939.705

949.493

-466.852

933.705

ras_reliance

random

6

932.410

951.986

-460.205

920.410

13.295

3

0.004

ras_domination

null

3

875.558

885.346

-434.779

869.558

ras_domination

random

6

874.792

894.368

-431.396

862.792

6.766

3

0.080

symptom

null

3

1,353.616

1,363.389

-673.808

1,347.616

symptom

random

6

1,357.583

1,377.128

-672.792

1,345.583

2.033

3

0.566

slof_work

null

3

1,113.763

1,123.551

-553.881

1,107.763

slof_work

random

6

1,118.937

1,138.513

-553.468

1,106.937

0.826

3

0.843

slof_relationship

null

3

1,200.530

1,210.318

-597.265

1,194.530

slof_relationship

random

6

1,202.309

1,221.885

-595.154

1,190.309

4.221

3

0.239

satisfaction

null

3

1,286.105

1,295.893

-640.052

1,280.105

satisfaction

random

6

1,289.454

1,309.030

-638.727

1,277.454

2.651

3

0.449

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,022.376

1,032.164

-508.188

1,016.376

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,027.065

1,046.641

-507.533

1,015.065

1.311

3

0.727

mhc_social

null

3

1,196.515

1,206.303

-595.257

1,190.515

mhc_social

random

6

1,201.353

1,220.929

-594.676

1,189.353

1.162

3

0.762

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,251.240

1,261.028

-622.620

1,245.240

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,256.138

1,275.714

-622.069

1,244.138

1.102

3

0.777

resilisnce

null

3

1,120.577

1,130.365

-557.289

1,114.577

resilisnce

random

6

1,119.362

1,138.938

-553.681

1,107.362

7.215

3

0.065

social_provision

null

3

943.210

952.998

-468.605

937.210

social_provision

random

6

942.634

962.210

-465.317

930.634

6.576

3

0.087

els_value_living

null

3

972.380

982.169

-483.190

966.380

els_value_living

random

6

974.463

994.039

-481.231

962.463

3.918

3

0.270

els_life_fulfill

null

3

973.481

983.269

-483.740

967.481

els_life_fulfill

random

6

975.238

994.814

-481.619

963.238

4.243

3

0.236

els

null

3

1,198.102

1,207.890

-596.051

1,192.102

els

random

6

1,199.261

1,218.837

-593.631

1,187.261

4.841

3

0.184

social_connect

null

3

1,382.419

1,392.207

-688.209

1,376.419

social_connect

random

6

1,382.439

1,402.016

-685.220

1,370.439

5.980

3

0.113

shs_agency

null

3

1,143.214

1,153.002

-568.607

1,137.214

shs_agency

random

6

1,146.287

1,165.863

-567.143

1,134.287

2.927

3

0.403

shs_pathway

null

3

1,044.487

1,054.275

-519.244

1,038.487

shs_pathway

random

6

1,049.324

1,068.900

-518.662

1,037.324

1.164

3

0.762

shs

null

3

1,342.667

1,352.455

-668.334

1,336.667

shs

random

6

1,346.549

1,366.125

-667.275

1,334.549

2.118

3

0.548

esteem

null

3

713.036

722.824

-353.518

707.036

esteem

random

6

718.681

738.257

-353.340

706.681

0.355

3

0.949

mlq_search

null

3

1,013.347

1,023.135

-503.674

1,007.347

mlq_search

random

6

1,019.106

1,038.682

-503.553

1,007.106

0.241

3

0.971

mlq_presence

null

3

1,073.402

1,083.190

-533.701

1,067.402

mlq_presence

random

6

1,078.861

1,098.437

-533.430

1,066.861

0.541

3

0.910

mlq

null

3

1,272.095

1,281.883

-633.048

1,266.095

mlq

random

6

1,277.679

1,297.255

-632.839

1,265.679

0.416

3

0.937

empower

null

3

1,066.461

1,076.249

-530.230

1,060.461

empower

random

6

1,071.512

1,091.088

-529.756

1,059.512

0.949

3

0.814

ismi_resistance

null

3

890.560

900.348

-442.280

884.560

ismi_resistance

random

6

895.017

914.593

-441.508

883.017

1.543

3

0.672

ismi_discrimation

null

3

962.775

972.564

-478.388

956.775

ismi_discrimation

random

6

966.381

985.958

-477.191

954.381

2.394

3

0.495

sss_affective

null

3

1,002.872

1,012.660

-498.436

996.872

sss_affective

random

6

1,003.705

1,023.281

-495.852

991.705

5.167

3

0.160

sss_behavior

null

3

1,025.548

1,035.336

-509.774

1,019.548

sss_behavior

random

6

1,028.687

1,048.264

-508.344

1,016.687

2.861

3

0.414

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,023.519

1,033.307

-508.760

1,017.519

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,025.554

1,045.130

-506.777

1,013.554

3.965

3

0.265

sss

null

3

1,404.106

1,413.894

-699.053

1,398.106

sss

random

6

1,405.852

1,425.428

-696.926

1,393.852

4.254

3

0.235

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

71

3.27 ± 1.15

69

3.13 ± 1.15

0.483

0.141

recovery_stage_a

2nd

27

3.33 ± 1.14

-0.059

26

3.63 ± 1.14

-0.507

0.338

-0.308

recovery_stage_b

1st

71

17.90 ± 2.86

69

18.04 ± 2.86

0.770

-0.065

recovery_stage_b

2nd

27

17.60 ± 2.73

0.139

26

18.47 ± 2.73

-0.192

0.249

-0.395

ras_confidence

1st

71

29.83 ± 5.21

69

30.23 ± 5.21

0.650

-0.137

ras_confidence

2nd

27

30.60 ± 4.40

-0.263

26

32.05 ± 4.40

-0.623

0.231

-0.498

ras_willingness

1st

71

11.66 ± 2.09

69

11.93 ± 2.09

0.454

-0.230

ras_willingness

2nd

27

11.08 ± 1.76

0.502

26

12.14 ± 1.76

-0.180

0.030

-0.912

ras_goal

1st

71

17.14 ± 3.16

69

17.64 ± 3.16

0.354

-0.257

ras_goal

2nd

27

16.78 ± 2.77

0.188

26

18.74 ± 2.76

-0.572

0.010

-1.017

ras_reliance

1st

71

12.99 ± 2.93

69

13.42 ± 2.93

0.382

-0.278

ras_reliance

2nd

27

13.38 ± 2.43

-0.253

26

14.80 ± 2.42

-0.884

0.035

-0.909

ras_domination

1st

71

10.17 ± 2.37

69

9.67 ± 2.37

0.211

0.293

ras_domination

2nd

27

9.93 ± 2.21

0.141

26

10.77 ± 2.21

-0.644

0.167

-0.492

symptom

1st

71

29.93 ± 9.41

68

29.94 ± 9.41

0.994

-0.003

symptom

2nd

27

29.81 ± 7.27

0.029

26

28.39 ± 7.28

0.377

0.478

0.345

slof_work

1st

71

22.85 ± 4.76

69

22.17 ± 4.76

0.405

0.267

slof_work

2nd

27

22.54 ± 3.93

0.123

26

22.29 ± 3.93

-0.046

0.820

0.098

slof_relationship

1st

71

24.90 ± 6.00

69

25.51 ± 6.00

0.551

-0.205

slof_relationship

2nd

27

23.75 ± 4.83

0.388

26

26.29 ± 4.83

-0.266

0.057

-0.859

satisfaction

1st

71

19.99 ± 7.27

69

21.19 ± 7.27

0.329

-0.289

satisfaction

2nd

27

20.59 ± 6.19

-0.145

26

22.32 ± 6.19

-0.273

0.309

-0.417

mhc_emotional

1st

71

10.69 ± 3.78

69

11.20 ± 3.78

0.424

-0.266

mhc_emotional

2nd

27

11.08 ± 3.08

-0.201

26

11.39 ± 3.08

-0.095

0.715

-0.160

mhc_social

1st

71

14.75 ± 5.75

69

15.42 ± 5.75

0.489

-0.199

mhc_social

2nd

27

15.48 ± 4.96

-0.215

26

15.65 ± 4.95

-0.068

0.900

-0.051

mhc_psychological

1st

71

21.80 ± 6.67

69

22.09 ± 6.67

0.801

-0.074

mhc_psychological

2nd

27

22.50 ± 5.68

-0.183

26

22.80 ± 5.68

-0.187

0.847

-0.079

resilisnce

1st

71

16.25 ± 4.63

69

17.13 ± 4.63

0.264

-0.315

resilisnce

2nd

27

16.39 ± 4.02

-0.049

26

18.72 ± 4.02

-0.572

0.036

-0.839

social_provision

1st

71

13.11 ± 2.90

69

14.03 ± 2.90

0.063

-0.499

social_provision

2nd

27

12.59 ± 2.57

0.283

26

14.20 ± 2.57

-0.094

0.024

-0.876

els_value_living

1st

71

16.59 ± 3.19

69

17.35 ± 3.19

0.163

-0.402

els_value_living

2nd

27

16.85 ± 2.75

-0.140

26

17.88 ± 2.75

-0.281

0.178

-0.543

els_life_fulfill

1st

71

12.37 ± 3.39

69

13.14 ± 3.39

0.176

-0.499

els_life_fulfill

2nd

27

12.91 ± 2.66

-0.349

26

13.49 ± 2.66

-0.224

0.426

-0.374

els

1st

71

28.96 ± 6.01

69

30.49 ± 6.01

0.133

-0.538

els

2nd

27

29.73 ± 4.77

-0.271

26

31.36 ± 4.77

-0.303

0.217

-0.569

social_connect

1st

71

26.73 ± 9.62

69

26.19 ± 9.62

0.738

0.117

social_connect

2nd

27

28.05 ± 7.69

-0.283

26

23.66 ± 7.68

0.543

0.039

0.943

shs_agency

1st

71

13.97 ± 5.16

69

14.77 ± 5.16

0.363

-0.305

shs_agency

2nd

27

14.05 ± 4.19

-0.030

26

15.64 ± 4.19

-0.336

0.168

-0.610

shs_pathway

1st

71

15.75 ± 4.02

69

16.39 ± 4.02

0.344

-0.320

shs_pathway

2nd

27

15.94 ± 3.26

-0.096

26

16.55 ± 3.25

-0.081

0.493

-0.305

shs

1st

71

29.72 ± 8.77

69

31.16 ± 8.77

0.333

-0.341

shs

2nd

27

29.99 ± 7.00

-0.065

26

32.18 ± 6.99

-0.242

0.257

-0.518

esteem

1st

71

12.65 ± 1.55

69

12.58 ± 1.55

0.795

0.054

esteem

2nd

27

12.70 ± 1.51

-0.039

26

12.75 ± 1.51

-0.133

0.905

-0.039

mlq_search

1st

71

14.70 ± 3.48

69

14.97 ± 3.48

0.651

-0.113

mlq_search

2nd

27

14.87 ± 3.17

-0.069

26

14.93 ± 3.17

0.019

0.945

-0.025

mlq_presence

1st

71

13.38 ± 4.19

69

13.65 ± 4.19

0.702

-0.111

mlq_presence

2nd

27

13.63 ± 3.60

-0.101

26

13.94 ± 3.60

-0.118

0.752

-0.127

mlq

1st

71

28.08 ± 6.95

69

28.62 ± 6.95

0.647

-0.127

mlq

2nd

27

28.50 ± 6.08

-0.098

26

28.89 ± 6.08

-0.062

0.817

-0.091

empower

1st

71

18.97 ± 4.29

69

19.61 ± 4.29

0.381

-0.304

empower

2nd

27

19.15 ± 3.44

-0.085

26

19.34 ± 3.43

0.128

0.840

-0.091

ismi_resistance

1st

71

14.48 ± 2.50

69

14.62 ± 2.50

0.733

-0.080

ismi_resistance

2nd

27

14.46 ± 2.33

0.008

26

15.10 ± 2.33

-0.266

0.320

-0.355

ismi_discrimation

1st

71

11.96 ± 3.16

69

11.22 ± 3.16

0.168

0.417

ismi_discrimation

2nd

27

11.61 ± 2.67

0.198

26

11.14 ± 2.67

0.045

0.524

0.264

sss_affective

1st

71

10.03 ± 3.50

69

9.81 ± 3.50

0.715

0.113

sss_affective

2nd

27

10.19 ± 2.93

-0.084

26

8.76 ± 2.93

0.551

0.077

0.748

sss_behavior

1st

71

9.89 ± 3.72

69

9.43 ± 3.72

0.473

0.218

sss_behavior

2nd

27

9.88 ± 3.14

0.006

26

8.69 ± 3.13

0.358

0.172

0.570

sss_cognitive

1st

71

8.24 ± 3.71

69

8.14 ± 3.71

0.880

0.047

sss_cognitive

2nd

27

8.94 ± 3.10

-0.350

26

7.45 ± 3.10

0.344

0.081

0.741

sss

1st

71

28.15 ± 10.14

69

27.39 ± 10.14

0.657

0.151

sss

2nd

27

28.95 ± 8.20

-0.157

26

25.01 ± 8.19

0.471

0.082

0.779

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(181.36) = -0.70, p = 0.483, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.25)

2st

t(177.70) = 0.96, p = 0.338, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.92)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(174.31) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.81 to 1.10)

2st

t(170.36) = 1.16, p = 0.249, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.61 to 2.35)

ras_confidence

1st

t(156.31) = 0.46, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.34 to 2.14)

2st

t(170.45) = 1.20, p = 0.231, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.93 to 3.84)

ras_willingness

1st

t(155.79) = 0.75, p = 0.454, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.96)

2st

t(171.04) = 2.18, p = 0.030, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.01)

ras_goal

1st

t(160.31) = 0.93, p = 0.354, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.56 to 1.55)

2st

t(167.25) = 2.59, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -1.02, 95% CI (0.47 to 3.47)

ras_reliance

1st

t(154.44) = 0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.41)

2st

t(172.78) = 2.13, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.91, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.73)

ras_domination

1st

t(170.20) = -1.26, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.29, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.29)

2st

t(167.64) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.04)

symptom

1st

t(147.68) = 0.01, p = 0.994, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-3.14 to 3.17)

2st

t(182.70) = -0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-5.37 to 2.53)

slof_work

1st

t(154.10) = -0.83, p = 0.405, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.26 to 0.92)

2st

t(173.27) = -0.23, p = 0.820, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-2.38 to 1.88)

slof_relationship

1st

t(151.85) = 0.60, p = 0.551, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.61)

2st

t(176.96) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.86, 95% CI (-0.08 to 5.16)

satisfaction

1st

t(157.23) = 0.98, p = 0.329, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.63)

2st

t(169.50) = 1.02, p = 0.309, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-1.62 to 5.09)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(152.85) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.78)

2st

t(175.21) = 0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.98)

mhc_social

1st

t(158.62) = 0.69, p = 0.489, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.24 to 2.59)

2st

t(168.32) = 0.13, p = 0.900, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.86)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(157.25) = 0.25, p = 0.801, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.94 to 2.51)

2st

t(169.48) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-2.78 to 3.38)

resilisnce

1st

t(159.39) = 1.12, p = 0.264, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.42)

2st

t(167.79) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.84, 95% CI (0.15 to 4.51)

social_provision

1st

t(162.14) = 1.87, p = 0.063, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.88)

2st

t(166.53) = 2.28, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.22 to 3.00)

els_value_living

1st

t(158.48) = 1.40, p = 0.163, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.82)

2st

t(168.42) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.51)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(149.92) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.91)

2st

t(180.64) = 0.80, p = 0.426, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.86 to 2.03)

els

1st

t(150.75) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.47 to 3.54)

2st

t(179.00) = 1.24, p = 0.217, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.96 to 4.21)

social_connect

1st

t(151.25) = -0.33, p = 0.738, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-3.76 to 2.67)

2st

t(178.05) = -2.08, p = 0.039, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-8.55 to -0.22)

shs_agency

1st

t(152.65) = 0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.93 to 2.52)

2st

t(175.56) = 1.38, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.68 to 3.87)

shs_pathway

1st

t(152.38) = 0.95, p = 0.344, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.99)

2st

t(176.01) = 0.69, p = 0.493, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.38)

shs

1st

t(151.13) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.49 to 4.37)

2st

t(178.28) = 1.14, p = 0.257, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-1.61 to 5.98)

esteem

1st

t(178.04) = -0.26, p = 0.795, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.59 to 0.45)

2st

t(173.85) = 0.12, p = 0.905, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.87)

mlq_search

1st

t(165.93) = 0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.43)

2st

t(166.26) = 0.07, p = 0.945, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.66 to 1.78)

mlq_presence

1st

t(158.32) = 0.38, p = 0.702, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.13 to 1.67)

2st

t(168.55) = 0.32, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.64 to 2.27)

mlq

1st

t(160.39) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.78 to 2.86)

2st

t(167.21) = 0.23, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.91 to 3.68)

empower

1st

t(151.55) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.07)

2st

t(177.49) = 0.20, p = 0.840, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.06)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(169.76) = 0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)

2st

t(167.43) = 1.00, p = 0.320, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.90)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(156.41) = -1.39, p = 0.168, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-1.80 to 0.32)

2st

t(170.33) = -0.64, p = 0.524, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.98)

sss_affective

1st

t(155.33) = -0.37, p = 0.715, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.95)

2st

t(171.60) = -1.78, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.75, 95% CI (-3.02 to 0.16)

sss_behavior

1st

t(156.13) = -0.72, p = 0.473, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.70 to 0.79)

2st

t(170.64) = -1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.88 to 0.52)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(155.17) = -0.15, p = 0.880, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.14)

2st

t(171.81) = -1.76, p = 0.081, Cohen d = 0.74, 95% CI (-3.17 to 0.19)

sss

1st

t(152.19) = -0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-4.15 to 2.62)

2st

t(176.35) = -1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-8.38 to 0.50)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(92.71) = 2.06, p = 0.085, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (0.02 to 0.97)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(81.98) = 0.76, p = 0.899, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.53)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(63.92) = 2.35, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.27 to 3.36)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(63.50) = 0.68, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.82)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(67.30) = 2.18, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.09 to 2.12)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(62.43) = 3.32, p = 0.003, Cohen d = -0.88, 95% CI (0.55 to 2.21)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(77.04) = 2.52, p = 0.028, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.23 to 1.98)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(58.04) = -1.40, p = 0.335, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.78 to 0.67)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(62.16) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.45)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.44) = 0.99, p = 0.650, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.80 to 2.37)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.67) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-1.06 to 3.33)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(61.20) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.21)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(65.84) = 0.26, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.01)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.69) = 0.71, p = 0.963, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.30 to 2.73)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(66.49) = 2.18, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (0.13 to 3.05)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(68.93) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.13)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.72) = 1.07, p = 0.581, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.52)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(59.01) = 0.83, p = 0.817, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.19)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.63) = 1.13, p = 0.528, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.40)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.99) = -2.03, p = 0.094, Cohen d = 0.54, 95% CI (-5.02 to -0.03)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(61.04) = 1.26, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.27)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.84) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.24)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.90) = 0.90, p = 0.742, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-1.24 to 3.28)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(87.18) = 0.53, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.79)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(72.54) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.26 to 1.17)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(65.58) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.58)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(67.36) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.96 to 2.49)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(60.22) = -0.48, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.85)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(76.55) = 1.04, p = 0.602, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.44 to 1.39)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(64.01) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.86)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(63.13) = -2.08, p = 0.084, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-2.07 to -0.04)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(63.78) = -1.35, p = 0.362, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-1.84 to 0.35)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(63.00) = -1.30, p = 0.399, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.77 to 0.38)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.70) = -1.76, p = 0.166, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-5.09 to 0.32)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(92.39) = 0.24, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.41 to 0.53)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(81.75) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.39 to 0.78)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(63.84) = 1.01, p = 0.632, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.28)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(63.42) = -1.93, p = 0.116, Cohen d = 0.50, 95% CI (-1.18 to 0.02)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(67.19) = -0.73, p = 0.937, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.63)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(62.36) = 0.97, p = 0.672, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.21)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(76.85) = -0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.62)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(58.07) = -0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.30 to 2.06)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(62.09) = -0.47, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.00)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(60.38) = -1.48, p = 0.289, Cohen d = 0.39, 95% CI (-2.70 to 0.41)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(64.58) = 0.56, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 2.76)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(61.14) = 0.77, p = 0.894, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.62 to 1.40)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(65.74) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-1.02 to 2.48)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(64.60) = 0.70, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.28 to 2.67)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(66.39) = 0.19, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.57)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(68.81) = -1.10, p = 0.548, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.46 to 0.42)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(65.62) = 0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.71 to 1.23)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(58.97) = 1.32, p = 0.383, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.37)

els

1st vs 2st

t(59.57) = 1.03, p = 0.614, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.28)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(59.94) = 1.08, p = 0.573, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.13 to 3.76)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(60.98) = 0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.29 to 1.45)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(60.78) = 0.37, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.25)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(59.85) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.95 to 2.50)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(86.90) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.56 to 0.66)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(72.39) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.36)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(65.48) = 0.39, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.02 to 1.52)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(67.25) = 0.38, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.77 to 2.60)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(60.16) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 1.28)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(76.37) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.91 to 0.88)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(63.92) = -0.76, p = 0.897, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.27 to 0.57)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(63.06) = 0.32, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.16)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(63.70) = -0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.09 to 1.06)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(62.93) = 1.34, p = 0.369, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.76)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(60.64) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 3.45)

Plot

Clinical significance